Eyman might want to add me to his press list

If Tim Eyman calls a press conference, and no reporters show up, did he make a sound? Apparently not, for the most striking thing about the media coverage of Tim’s performance audits initiative was the almost total lack thereof.

Yesterday was the opening day of the initiative filing season, an event Tim has traditionally turned into an annual photo op… but this year, few reporters took advantage of the opportunity. Indeed, scanning the papers, Tim’s “I-900” received nary a headline and barely a mention in the wrap-ups of the day’s political events.

Of course, with the filing coinciding with the first day of the legislative session, and the GOP’s failed efforts to block certification of Christine Gregoire’s election, part of Tim’s failure to grab headlines was due to timing. But it is also due to the fact that Tim Eyman’s time may have passed.

In fact, the most press coverage an Eyman initiative got today was actually his four-year-old I-747. A group of environmentalists, social organizations and at least one county have filed suit to have the measure tossed out. [Lawsuit says I-747 violates state constitution]

I-747 is a particularly nefarious initiative because its impact is so gradual, masking from the public the enormous cuts projected out onto future budgets. I-747 limits property tax revenue growth to 1% a year… well below inflation, let alone growth in population or personal income. As revenues grow slower than demand for public services, these services are gradually cut. Without revision or repeal, many local taxing districts — particularly in rural communities in eastern Washington — face insolvency over the next few years.

Eyman claims the initiative was carefully drafted to avoid constitutional problems, but as usual, I tend to trust experts over lying blowhards:

Attorney Hugh Spitzer, whose firm has challenged many of Eyman’s initiatives, said it was clear after the initiative passed that there were constitutional issues that could be raised, but there wasn’t a group of cities and counties that wanted to spend the time and effort to litigate it.

If Hugh Spitzer says there are valid constitutional issues, then there are valid constitutional issues. Whereas if Tim Eyman says the sky is blue, I’d have my doubts.

Anyway, it’s nice to see Timmy on the defensive, and it’s unlikely we’ll see him recover any time soon. His newest initiative is a dog, and even if it wasn’t about to be obviated by a more reasonable legislative proposal, he still lacks the grassroots and financial resources to qualify it for the ballot. And now I-747, his most lasting contribution to our state of perpetual budget crisis, is under legal attack.

Tim has failed to pass an initiative two years running, and as his ethical scandals continue to outnumber his electoral victories, he will continue his inevitable slide towards political irrelevance.

Who knows, maybe next year, when the media fails to show up for yet another filing day press conference… perhaps I won’t even bother to blog on it?

I-747 is a particularly nefarious initiative because its impact is so gradual, masking from the public the enormous cuts projected out onto future budgets. I-747 limits property tax revenue growth to 1% a year… well below inflation,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry Goldy but this statement is pure out and out a LIE. Although 747 limits increases to 1% per year, at the same time property is reevaluated yearly and the reevaluation more than keeps up with inflation in most cases, so dont try the poor undertaxed county thing here.

Chuck – all that property rising and new big revaluation only works in growing fast counties. Like King and Pierce. The rural counties who are losing populationa and where real estate values are stagnate are being screwed. NOT LIES, you right wing hack.

And the good old farmers paying all the taxes don’t want their working acres revised every year. Ask county asessors about that fact of life.

And the good old farmers paying all the taxes don’t want their working acres revised every year. Ask county asessors about that fact of life.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Hate to let you in on this secret but NOBODY wants yearly adjusments, but it is a plain fact of life mandated by the legislature that property will be assesed at 100% of its value. I dont like it but it is reality.

Chuck — you clearly don’t understand 747. It’s an aggregate limit, which means that if a taxing district collects $1 million one year, they can collect $1,010,000 the next year. Not enough to keep up with inflation, so you are required to continuously ratchet services downward, even if you want to keep service levels the same.

Thanks Bax… Chuck is so talking out of his ass, I can smell the pixels on my screen. Yes, it is an aggregate limit on property tax revenue increases. It is not a limit on rate increases, and has indeed had the effect of steadily decreasing property tax rates.

But then, Chuck’s reply was instructive on how the other side deals with issues like this. Even though he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about, he stated his erroneous interpretation with such conviction, I’m sure it had weight with like minded ideologues.

Chuck – you clearly don’t understand 747. It’s an aggregate limit, which means that if a taxing district collects $1 million one year, they can collect $1,010,000 the next year. Not enough to keep up with inflation, so you are required to continuously ratchet services downward, even if you want to keep service levels the same.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No Bax, you clearly dont understand, the tax is lets say for argument is 5%, now you can charge 1% more next year as well as if the voters agree you can ratchet it up even more. Now the property will increase in value the next year usually by more than inflation, then you get your cost of living adjustment in the value increase.

Actually, an initiative can be filed up to 10 months before the general election. Of course, the general election is on November 8, 2005 and January 8, 2005 was a Saturday. So it is just a coincidence that the first legal day for filing was the second day in January (i.e. January 10, 2005) when the legislature convened. Usually, it will be the Monday before the legislature convenes. Or it will be on a Friday in a leap year (either 3 or 10 days before the session begins).

Tim Eyman’s latest proposal will go over like a lead balloon. However, he will be making a lot of noise about it. Probably it will help (finally) to pass the state performance audit initiative that Brian Sonntag favors (and has wanted for the last umpteen years).

Usually, initiative filing season does not coincide with the first day of the legislative session. The earliest day is 10 months before the general election — which falls on a Saturday three out of four years — making the deadline the following Monday. Most of the time, this ends up being the first Monday in January. However, the general election this year is on November 8, 2005, so it is the second Monday in January this year — also opening day for the Legislature. If it is a leap year, then initiative filing will start on a Friday.

Eyman must have been in a hurry to grab number 900 for his latest filing. It will probably go over like a lead balloon. Doubtful that it will gather much in the way of volunteers or contributors. On the other hand, it will light a fire under the Legislature to make sure that the more reasonable proposal that Brian Sonntag favors (and has urged for the last umpteen years) get passed. If the legislature stonewalls on that (or if whoever is Governor doesn’t sign it), then maybe Eyman will be able to rally support for his rather excessive proposal.

No Bax, you clearly dont understand, the tax is lets say for argument is 5%, now you can charge 1% more next year as well as if the voters agree you can ratchet it up even more. Now the property will increase in value the next year usually by more than inflation, then you get your cost of living adjustment in the value increase.

No Chuck, you totally have it wrong.

I-747 imposes a limit on growth in property tax “revenues” not rates (excluding new construction). If a district raised $100 in property tax revenues in 2004, it may not raise more than $101 in property tax revenue in 2005, regardless of the change in property values within the district.

For example, let’s say your home is the only property within the local “Educate Chuck about Tax Structure” district. Your home is assessed at $500,000 in 2004, and the regular local levy for this district is .0100%. Your tax is $50.00 (which in this odd example, also happens to be the total revenues for the entire district.)

Now let’s say your property value increases by 10%, to an assessed value of $550,000 in 2005. I-747 limits revenue growth in the district to 1%… a $0.50 increase for 2005 to a total of $50.50. That means your rate will be reduced to .00918%. Thus regardless of how fast your property value grows, property tax revenue growth is still limited to 1% a year. Since this is below inflation, that means revenues shrink, year after year, in real dollars.

Of course, in a real district, an individual homeowner will see his property taxes rise at more or less than 1% a year, depending on the change in the assessed value of their home relative to other properties within the district. But the point is, the aggregate revenues for the taxing district cannot.

Got that Chuck?

And I wasnt insinuating you as a liar, just the person that fed you that bogus info

The person who fed me that info is me. Unlike Eyman, I decided to actually educate myself on tax structure before debating it.

You did an excellent job of explaining how property taxes work and how I-747 works.

I don’t see how I-747 would be unconstitutional, just because some people think it is bad public policy. After I-695 was struck down for the alleged multiple subject violation, creative lawyers started suing to declare numerous legislature-passed laws unconstitutional on the same grounds. The appellate courts realized how much mischief that one would cause, and started backing away from finding multiple subjects. That is why the Supreme Court approved I-776 (passed in 2002), which eliminated both a $15 county vehicle tax and the 0.4% Sound Transit motor vehicle excise tax (the latter tax elimination being still challenged on different grounds).

There is nothing inherently wrong with voters having to vote periodically on the amount of property tax that local governments can charge. Even if the real property tax collections (after adjustment for inflation) would decline otherwise, due to the 1% cap. If the voters don’t want to be taxed that much, then there is nothing wrong in submitting the question to them periodically.

It should be noted that only one local government is challenging I-747, and that is Whitman County. Apparently, that is the only local government unit where there is a significant disagreement between the electorate and their elected representatives about the level of property tax. As in the county commissioners are apparently upset that local voters won’t vote to raise property taxes. So they want to change the law, so that local voters don’t have to approve tax increases any more.

Now let’s say your property value increases by 10%, to an assessed value of $550,000 in 2005. I-747 limits revenue growth in the district to 1%… a $0.50 increase for 2005 to a total of $50.50. That means your rate will be reduced to .00918%. Thus regardless of how fast your property value grows, property tax revenue growth is still limited to 1% a year. Since this is below inflation, that means revenues shrink, year after year, in real dollars.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am sorry, Goldy but you are not right about your formula, the only thing affected by 747 is the RATE you are taxed. The value has no controls on it besides the “like values in the area” they can actually double the value if selling prices will allow them and I-747 will have no effect

Tim Eyman’s latest proposal will go over like a lead balloon. However, he will be making a lot of noise about it. Probably it will help (finally) to pass the state performance audit initiative that Brian Sonntag favors (and has wanted for the last umpteen years).

Richard… surely Tim will attempt to take credit when the Legislature passes its performance audit bill, but he won’t deserve it. It had the votes in the Democratic House last year, but died in the Republican Senate. With Democratic majorities in both houses, it’s passage seems likely. (Don’t get me wrong, R’s also support performance audits, they just support something more punitive.)

Goldy is right on this one. Trust me. Even Chris Vance would say that Goldy is right on his explanation. Or at least Chris Vance would have when he was on the King County Council, and had the chance to consult with Rob McKenna to understand the more complicated issues …

* applies to the revenue (levy) amount that taxing districts, i.e. State, County, Cities/Towns, or Port, etc. can collect. (See details in FAQ page.) * is for tax collections beginning in 2002. * limits taxing districts to 1% increase on the regular levy portion of your property tax. Before I-747, the limit was up to 6%.

Goldy, thanks for the perfect explanations about Eyman and the screw em up, I – 747.

No wonder the cow counties are reeling. They have no money to replace the fire truck, repair the roof of the county courthouse, get a dollar an hour more to employees. Can’t run the jails – stop the weeds or vacinate the kids for free.

I did not understand the formula, thanks again Goldy, you are a jewel.

And of course, the salvation in it all is for the sales tax counties – more retailing more income. Low sales tax counties are screwed blue and tatooed.

And they voted for it. What irony. And in most of these areas the R’s supported this vote. Fiscal control, stop out of control spending, citizen revolt – some of the propaganda. Now they can’t afford libraries and good fire proection.

We need I-74 because people should not be taxed out of their houses. Thank goodness Republicans recognize this need for economic freedom. Ds are so cold and heartless about home ownership. It’s like they don’t want people to keep their houses

You do not believe in rual Fire Districts? Maintaing jails in rural counties? The weed district assesment which pays for spraying in farming area is not important enough to maintain?

Nothing to do with owning homes, just adequate funding from taxes for vital services.

Becaue I live in Seattle, and there is so much tax base increase here, my house value is up and my property taxes down. Lowest in 6 years. A billion dollars in new downtown constuction and great sales tax volume gives us cash. No so for the red counties of Eastern Washington.

Sad to see the decline in those areas. No money – no paint and no services.

Whitman County is also relatively poor in property values, as well as retail sales. If anyone is interested in statistics, the state Department of Revenue publishes a whole bunch of them, including property taxes. Here is a table with assessed property values by county:

2004 Assessed Values: King County has $234.777 billion of property value. Whitman County has only $1.883 billion of property value. The whole state has $536.610 billion of property value. State less King County has $301.833 billion of property value.

On the other hand, populations of counties (April 1, 2004 estimates):

State of Washington: 6,167,800. King County: 1,788,300. Whitman County: 41,700 State less King County: 4,379,500

If you do the math, and figure out per capita assessed property values: King County $131,285. Whitman County $45,155. Entire state $87,001. State less King County $68,919.

So King County has nearly twice the assessed real property value per capita as the remainder of the state. At the same time, King County has fewer children and fewer public school students per capita than the remainder of the state.

Interesting food for thought. If they want to increase education funding for our children, they should consider an increase in the state property tax, which will hit wealthy childless (mostly Democrat) property owners in Seattle, instead of an increase in the regressive sales tax, which will hit hard working families with children (Republican leaning) in suburban and rural counties.

Within and subject to the limitations imposed by RCW 84.52.050 as amended, the regular ad valorem tax levies upon real and personal property by the taxing districts hereafter named shall be as follows:

(1) Levies of the senior taxing districts shall be as follows: (a) The levy by the state shall not exceed three dollars and sixty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value adjusted to the state equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the state department of revenue to be used exclusively for the support of the common schools; (b) the levy by any county shall not exceed one dollar and eighty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value; (c) the levy by any road district shall not exceed two dollars and twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value; and (d) the levy by any city or town shall not exceed three dollars and thirty-seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value. However any county is hereby authorized to increase its levy from one dollar and eighty cents to a rate not to exceed two dollars and forty-seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value for general county purposes if the total levies for both the county and any road district within the county do not exceed four dollars and five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, and no other taxing district has its levy reduced as a result of the increased county levy.

(2) The aggregate levies of junior taxing districts and senior taxing districts, other than the state, shall not exceed five dollars and ninety cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. The term “junior taxing districts” includes all taxing districts other than the state, counties, road districts, cities, towns, port districts, and public utility districts. The limitations provided in this subsection shall not apply to: (a) Levies at the rates provided by existing law by or for any port or public utility district; (b) excess property tax levies authorized in Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution; (c) levies for acquiring conservation futures as authorized under RCW 84.34.230; (d) levies for emergency medical care or emergency medical services imposed under RCW 84.52.069; (e) levies to finance affordable housing for very low-income housing imposed under RCW 84.52.105; (f) the portions of levies by metropolitan park districts that are protected under RCW 84.52.120; (g) levies imposed by ferry districts under RCW 36.54.130; and (h) levies for criminal justice purposes under RCW 84.52.135.

Goldy is still right. There are different RCW sections that deal with how much property taxes in dollars that each local government unit can levy. Basically, they can increase property taxes up to 1% over the dollar amount that was requested for the previous year, without people voting on it. Or by more if the voters approve it. The county assessor takes whatever dollar amount is approved by each local government unit, divides it by the assessed taxable value in each jurisdiction, and determines how much to levy for each local government unit per thousand dollars of assessed value. The state Department of Revenue determines the amount in each county to assess for the state property tax.

Ds are so cold and heartless about home ownership. It’s like they don’t want people to keep their houses

M… check out HB 3076, the Property Tax Homestead Exemption bill that Steve Zemke and I wrote, and had introduced in the last session. It would have provided substantially more property tax relief to more homeowners than Eyman’s 25% tax cut initiative… while remaining revenue neutral. We had 16 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

Our state’s problem is not that taxes are too high, but that they are too high on the wrong people.

Oh my God Chuck, are you just dense, or can you really not accept the fact that you are wrong? You are looking at the WRONG part of the code! You quoted the sections on the statutory aggregate limits. I gave you a link to RCW 84.55, and you’re quoting back at me RCW 84.52.

84.52 has absolutely nothing to do with I-747. Listen to Richard if you won’t listen to me… he described the process perfectly.

Chuck, you are wrong on this. Perhaps the confusion is caused by the fat that an individual property’s tax can be increased by more than 1% even if the total tax only increases 1%. For example, assessd values in one neighborhood may rise a lot faster than the rest of the area. The taxes paid in that fast appreciating neighborhood would rise more than 1% but the total taxes in the town would not.

Although I cannot find the figure, I oce had for an argument over this same subject (my brother the consumate democrat, wants to spend everyone elses money) but the year following the inception of I-747, tax collections increased by 1/3 in Pierce County and it was attributed to increased property values. It was an article in the TNT, and the assesor sais I-747 only addressed the tax rate.

Richard — here’s the problem with your statement about people being required to vote on aggregate increases: in many places the election costs exceed the possible revenue gains. So what that means is even if local citizens want their fire district or library district to maintain its existing level of services, which always means exceeding the 1% aggregate limit, the election costs are higher than the revenue they’d raise by exceeding the 1% limit.

So in these districts, even if their citizens are demanding the service levels stay the same, they have to make cuts because of 747. Had 747 allowed districts to have a vote once every 5, 10, 15, or 20 years, they might be able to make it work, but since it requires a vote every year, these districts are forced to make cuts. And not just one year — every single year, for eternity. That’s why 747 is a bad idea.

M — If people are being taxed out of their homes, that’s not a good thing. However, when asked to give just one single example of someone being “taxed out of their home” during the 747 campaign, Eyman couldn’t come up with anybody.

Making bold statements with no evidence to back them up…we all know the GOP would never do such a thing, right?

And one last post — just to cut off the “new construction” argument argument at the pass before somebody tries to make it.

Lots of people claim that governments will be okay under 747 because new construction is exempt from the 1% aggregate limit. This is true, sorta. New construction *may* allow government to maintain its existing service levels as of 2001 (when 747 passed), but that’s a big maybe. The problem is that new construction creates new demands on government services, so generally you need more people to provide service, not the same amount. When you have a ton of new people move into an area, you need to build new fire stations, hire new firefighters, hire new cops, etc. Let me give you an example.

The Sammamish plateau (now the city of Sammamish) had 1 fire station staffed with volunteers up until the late 80’s. It had seen extreme growth during the 80’s, creating a vastly increased demand for service for the fire district serving that area. So they built 2 new fire stations, and by the late 90’s staffed all three stations with full-time firefighters to deal with this new demand. They were able to do that because of new construction, which provided revenues for *new* levels of service.

How would that have worked had 747 been in effect? The new construction would’ve probably allowed them to maintain their existing levels of service — i.e. that one volunteer fire station. They would not have been able to keep up with the vastly increased demand for service, and would not have been able to build those two new fire stations and hire staff for all three stations, because 747 would have only let them maintain their existing levels of service. Basically, houses would burn down, and people would die.

Somewhere in the state you will see the same explosive growth that you did in Samammish. The difference is, under 747, that place might be able to keep the level of service it has right now. It will not be able to plan for the future, and provide the level of service demanded by its citizens.

I have no faith that voters recognized these sorts of obscure, yet dramatic, impacts when they approved 747.

C’mon Goldy – we all know that Chuck isn’t going to be constrained by little things like “facts” and “evidence”. Why should he let a little thing like being wrong stop him from railing against the government and those liberals he thinks are at the root of his problem. Wouldn’t be fair for him to rail against his math or civis teachers, would it?

There’s a portion of the population who will gladly vote for a tax cut no matter what the effect on society. It’s people like Chuck that make people like Tim Eyman so dangerous. That portion of the population that think of themselves on being “in the know”, but doesn’t have enough background in math or state law to understand that Tim’s formulas are meant to sound good, but they never add up. Eyman creates a false equivalency by being able to claim that because he has formulas and uses math it’s equal to the people that use it correctly. No one can convince Eyman’s his math is wrong because he’s not constrained by the actual facts (or science, or a real understanding of government).

Don’t get me wrong, I know that Eyman isn’t being genuine when he says something will be “revenue neutral” – he’s simply an opportunist. But people like Chuck have clearly been convinced that his pseudo-science/math-like arguments are actually real.

Bax – The GOP is really good at preying on people’s fear – “people taxed out of their homes” – because, as Goldy put it, they’re trying to win the PR war. They figured out that people don’t care if the fear isn’t real, just that it scares them. Same thing Republicans are doing with their argument against gay marriage, manufacturing the Social Security “crisis”, claiming this election was “stolen”. It’s all the same. The GOP is the party of baseless fear.

The use the same principle that advertisers figured out – People don’t care that buying Air Jordans won’t actually make you “like Mike”, or that shopping at Victoria’s Secret won’t turn you into Tyra Banks. Or ads that imply if you don’t buy this car, your kids won’t be safe. People buy into it because of wishful thinking or out of fear.

M – If people are being taxed out of their homes, that’s not a good thing. However, when asked to give just one single example of someone being “taxed out of their home” during the 747 campaign, Eyman couldn’t come up with anybody.

Making bold statements with no evidence to back them up…we all know the GOP would never do such a thing, right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The TNT comes out with two pages of people they have taxed out of their homes every year, I personally know of a guy that lost 20 acres that way…last name was Meyers.

Lots of people claim that governments will be okay under 747 because new construction is exempt from the 1% aggregate limit. This is true, sorta. New construction *may* allow government to maintain its existing service levels as of 2001 (when 747 passed), but that’s a big maybe. The problem is that new construction creates new demands on government services, so generally you need more people to provide service, not the same amount.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That again is a false statement, with the new house you get increased taxes by the increased value of the raw land, more gas tax in that area by the family, increases sales tax by them, increased federal income tax which will tricle down to the state and local level. The state or local government will have money for the same level EVEN IF they have to hire someone, and that isnt even counting the staggering cost of permiting and new construction taxes in most areas.

C’mon Goldy – we all know that Chuck isn’t going to be constrained by little things like “facts” and “evidence”. Why should he let a little thing like being wrong stop him from railing against the government and those liberals he thinks are at the root of his problem. Wouldn’t be fair for him to rail against his math or civis teachers, would it?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I see it a bit different, when an idea comes in like the expansion of the electronic scratch tickets (yes, slot machines) comes through, it can be a government gravy run for government, the people VOULENTEER to give tax money, you want nothing to do with it and let the lies of the native american casinos turn the public away from it.

Well I see it a bit different, when an idea comes in like the expansion of the electronic scratch tickets (yes, slot machines) comes through, it can be a government gravy run for government, the people VOULENTEER to give tax money

Please Chuck, you’re assuming that Tim’s lies about how much money the government would receive and people would save are truth. In fact, they’ve been roundly debunked.

On the government revenue side Eyman deliberately misrepresented the amount that government would receive, in even under the most optimistic of circumstances, by offering up a totally unrealistic “75% payout rate” (nearly the minimum) from the slot machines. Every industry insider says the payout needs to be 95% or higher to attract repeat customers. Existing slot machines pay out between 95% and 98%.This means that in order to attract customers, machines need to be programmed get back nearly all the money they put in, massively reducing the amount even available to be split amongst the government and slot machine operators. And nearly all of the small slice of remaining money taken in by slot machines would go to the operators, to fund gambling addiction hotlines, etc.

His estimate of how much people would save in property taxes/year was likewise pulled out of thin air.

Eyman says his initiative is “revenue neutral” — that is, it would create $400 million in new taxes for the state with a corresponding $400 million cut in property taxes. Eyman says the lower property tax rate would save the average homeowner $220 a year.

Opponent Jim Austin, a Seattle attorney, is quick to poke holes in Eyman’s numbers. In a forum sponsored in part by The Olympian, Austin said the property tax saving would be closer to $13 to $32 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.

State budget officials have studied Eyman’s initiative and said opponents are correct. In 2009, the state property tax rate would be reduced by $252 million, saving the average taxpayer $32 per $100,000 of assessed valuation — a far cry from Eyman’s promise.

See also any of the posts at permanentdefense.org

I892 wasn’t rejected because of “native american casinos” or because we don’t want the government to have a “gravy train”. It was rejected because people either:

A) Don’t like slot machines B) Don’t believe slot machines are the way to solve government funding needs (every dollar that goes into these machines is a dollar that isn’t spent on some other taxable event) B) Know Tim’s numbers are bogus and it wouldn’t be a gravy train for government D) Don’t like Tim Eyman in general.

All are perfectly good reasons (except the last one, sort of) to vote down an initiative. No lies, Chuck, except from Tim Eyman. Just because he uses numbers doesn’t mean they count as math.

Chuck, I think Goldy is full of it some? most? of the time, but he’s right on the money on 747. Your bullet points and Goldy’s points are both correct, but you two seem to be talking about two different things: levy and rate. Further, are your examples of people being taxed out of their homes due to their RATE of tax, or the VALUATION? My property tax rate is about the same it was ten years ago, but the value of my home certainly has increased, so the tax due is much larger. So the issue is valuation, not tax rate, correct? The Homestead exemption would be the way to go to address your concerns.

Bax and others: I do know of at least one family who got taxed out of their house. The local paper described a family that had built their dreamhouse on Pine Lake some 15-20 years ago. It’s 3200 square feet, but the photo definitely showed a house that clearly wasn’t glamorous. Pretty dated-looking and definitely not snazzy; just ordinary looking. How sad that they couldn’t keep their home and it just killed them to have to sell it. that shouldn’t happen!

-Chuck, I think what you’re forgetting to say is that the counties; fire districts; local schools; libraries; roads; and ports also have their costs raise by the cost of living. Also my property is not re-evaluated yearly–perhaps the larger counties are different. Our library system is facing a 5M short fall over the next five years, and this is a direct result of I-747. Now, I ask you, what service deserves all the tax money it takes to run it more than libraries? Libraries saves the average tax payers more money yearly than the portion of their property taxes earmarked for libraries. Also I want to state the largest portion of our property taxes paid to the county is used to run the criminal justice system. How can we cut back on that? I do have some ideas for this, but the labor unions won’t like them. Property is assessed at 100% of its highest and best value. I am currently open space–and when I turn 62 I’ll get an additional reduction in my property tax. If Goldy had been able to get the Homestead Exemption passed, we’d all same some tax money.

-Bax, if I understand it correctly my library district has to pay for some, if not all, of the election costs to run a levy.

-Homophobe, Tim couldn’t kick anybody’s ass with is crooked leg! Once Timmy was shown to be a bilker when it came to the money average taxpaying supporters were giving his efforts–he lost all credibility with me. He’s crooked, and not to be believed anymore!

-M, if you don’t have the money to pay your house payment you have to sell it. What makes you think property tax is any different? If you can’t afford the expenses of owning a property, you have to move on.

-Homophobe, Tim couldn’t kick anybody’s ass with HIS crooked leg! Once Timmy was shown to be a bilker when it came to the money average taxpaying supporters were giving his efforts–he lost all credibility with me. He’s crooked, and not to be believed anymore!

Also my property is not re-evaluated yearly>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to the Pierce County assesor if your property isnt evaluated once a year at 100% of its value your county is violating state law passes by the legislature, (this is what I was told by the assesor as well as the board of equalization)

Also I want to state the largest portion of our property taxes paid to the county is used to run the criminal justice system. How can we cut back on that?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let me tell you how we cut back on the criminal justice system, first you CONSOLIDATE. We have no need for a state patrol, county sheriff AND city cop. We need one law official period. then you have them consentrate on CRIME yes a new thing, crime. Instead of radar guns and coffee shops.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.